

Is money destroying the traditional visual art forms?  Obviously not, because beautiful art is still being produced, but perhaps this lagoon of true creativity is being polluted by a flow of money.  Art is being produced to be an asset that can be bought and sold.  I’m not trying to say artists shouldn’t be allowed to make a living from their skills, rather that there should be a recognised difference between “asset art” and “true art”.  The majority of “asset art” is produced by designers and is recognised as a commodity, but its the stuff that is sneaked through as true art that bugs me.  Theres no doubt that all creators are artistic, however maybe a more accurate term for “asset art” makers who don’t fit the designer title would be artist-ish?

The inquisitive, questioning nature that STEM engagement foster is applicable in all areas of life, including appreciation of art.  A friend of mine creates a “piece a day” purely for her own enjoyment and a bit of a challenge, a fantastically beautiful example of what I view as “true art”.  Another friend works for a media and events company and create fantastic “asset art” while recognising themselves as designers.

The flip side to this “asset art” vs “true art” thing is that emerging visual art forms aren’t being given the recognition they deserve.  My favourite of these is make up.  Not the bit of eyeliner here and there or the face painting type stuff, but the contouring thing.  That stuff blows my mind!  If you haven’t seen one of the many videos of this thing on YouTube, check one out.  Try to avoid the ones done by the sell out YouTubers who get paid for this lark.

Maybe this “true art”, “asset art” and design stuff is all a case of semantics but what is a life without examination, inspection and scrutiny.

Until next time, I could do with a job, hire me?